Talk:Civil parishes in Cornwall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wolfe Rock Lighthouse Extra-Parochial Area[edit]

I want to query the following sentence:

The former Wolfe Rock Lighthouse Extra-Parochial Area is unparished

This only makes sense if the Wolfe Rock Lighthouse Extra-Parochial Area is being used as a proper noun. And the capitalisation of E-P A also suggests this. But I can find no reference to an organisation, or other formal entity, called that.

The other reading is that the capitalisation of E-P A is a mistake, and this is simply a reference to an area that is extra-parochial. But then I don't understand the former, as the area is still unparished and hence extra-parochial. I'm strongly tempted to rewrite this paragraph as something like:

The Wolfe Rock is unparished

but I may be getting it wrong. For now, I will content myself with adding a fact tag. If noone comes up with an explanatory reference in a reasonable timescale, I will reconsider. -- Starbois (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later. I also note that both the WP article and Trinity House spell it as Wolf Rock. Perhaps we are talking about a different place. Even more reason for a reference. -- Starbois (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra-parochial areas existed in the United Kingdom until local government reorganisation in 1974, although almost all had been abolished in the 19th century. They were legally defined and named. Why Wolfe Rock was used rather than Wolf Rock remains a mystery (perhaps the spelling in everyday language has changed over the years?). There again, it could just be an error on the Vision of Britain website. However, it is the only citation we have, unless you know someone with access to Local Administrative Units: Southern England by F Youngs, published by the Royal Historical Society in 1979, which appears to be the original source of the information. The details of this legal entity, which was included in West Penwith Rural District can be found at Vision of Britain. The name and phrase format is in common with all the other sub-pages of List of civil parishes in England, such as The former Exeter County Borough is unparished. Since local government reorganisation in 1974, such areas have been referred to as unparished areas and the number has increased considerably, as most larger urban districts, municipal boroughs and county boroughs also became unparished areas.
There is a similar anomaly in the East Riding of Yorkshire, where the former civil parish of Bull Fort vanished after 1974, and is now technically an unparished area. Like Wolfe/Wolf Rock, it has no population. Quite why these two outposts at sea had a legal existence, when others like Eddystone didn't, I have never been able to fathom. To be honest, I wouldn't have any strong objection to references to both being removed. I don't think they are particularly useful, and there are other forts, rocks, lighthouses which are unparished, but which never get a mention anywhere in local government terms. However, I suppose someone is going to stumble across them on Vision of Britain some day and wonder what happened to them, so there may also be an argument to keep them. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on structure of civil parishes list[edit]

See WP:Cornwall talk page for a discussion relating to the structure of this article and other civil parish navigation issues in Cornwall. To keep the discussion in one place, please make any contributions relating to it on that talk page and not in this section.

Zangar (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to move this page back to its original position (where it formed one of the sub-pages of List of civil parishes in England. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A recent history merge[edit]

See also discussion in User talk:Skinsmoke#List of civil parishes in Cornwall.
  • Hi, I see you [= User:Anthony Appleyard] merged List of civil parishes in Cornwall (pre-2009) into List of civil parishes in Cornwall after a request from Skinsmoke. Unfortunately I don't think this was the correct move and was a little hasty. Although it was a content fork, there was no real new/different content there, so no need for a merge - I think a better course of action would be to either delete List of civil parishes in Cornwall (pre-2009) or keep it, ensuring the new civil parishes were not included. Also, after much discussion at WikiProject Cornwall the original version at List of civil parishes in Cornwall was the most up-to-date and should remain on that page. Would you be able to revert List of civil parishes in Cornwall back to the its state as it was before the merging please? We can then always assess the need to delete the pre-2009 article. Cheers Zangar (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hadn't it been agreed that the two lists both had their place? DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say, the speed with which two editors decided to ignore the discussion at the Wikiproject, and produce as a result an incorrect redirect is not good. Please can we have the pre-2009 list back, and maybe an attempt at allowing debate to go on for more than a few hours before any more such changes? DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify: I think the problem is the method in which the changes were made (cut-and-paste), not the changes themselves. Anthony Appleyard: If we had originally moved List of civil parishes in Cornwall to List of civil parishes in Cornwall (pre-2009) (ignoring the actual content of it, as Skinsmoke has pointed out it wasn't entirely correct) and then Andy F had copied and pasted his new version into the List of civil parishes in Cornwall article from his sandbox, would this have been acceptable? Zangar (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions copied from other locations regarding October 2010 article upgrade[edit]

All discussions below are closed, if you wish to contribute, please start a new topic

Copied from User talk:Skinsmoke/Sandbox/Civil parishes/Kernow[edit]

Text from Skinsmoke's sandbox talk page

Former Districts[edit]

The table needs a column for the pre-2009 districts/boroughs. DuncanHill (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Duncan, I mentioned this on Skinsmoke's talk page (3rd/4th indent) - using the refs column was suggested. Although from viewing the table in 1024x768 resolution or higher, I think we would be able to insert an extra column for the pre-2009 district. Maybe we can have a look at that after the table as it stands is fully populated. Zangar (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-2009 are just as relevant as the old UDC/RDCs, etc, and should have at least the same prominence. I'm not familiar with how tables work, so leave the technical stuff to others. As the table stands it gives the false impression that the UDC/RDCs were succeeded by the modern unitary authority. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we can possibly find a way of getting a column into the table, I would agree that it is desirable. The problem does not apply for most of the country, but it does affect not just Cornwall, but also Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Durham, East Riding of Yorkshire, Herefordshire, Isle of Wight, Northumberland, Shropshire, Wiltshire; most of Wales; and parts of East Sussex, Kent, Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire and Worcestershire. I am not sure how we can do it that will show up at a lower 800x600 resolution, which it needs to for those with older monitors or poorer eyesight (at 1024x768 it shouldn't be a problem). It may have to be handled by the References column (which it already is, in effect, through the population references). Comments from editors in other parts of the country have suggested overwhelmingly a preference for showing the pre 1974 districts (as that change affected the whole country, and marked a major shift from more localised administration to larger bodies) rather than the intervening districts, perhaps because it clearly shows which towns effectively lost their independence. If we can't manage to get both columns in, then I think I agree. Let's see what possibilities there are once the table is up and running. However, whatever we come up with should apply across all the subpages of List of civil parishes in England. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just occurred to me that another possible way of showing this could be by way of a map (if we can find someone capable of producing one). The maps that Jza84 produced, that have been used at the metropolitan counties (see List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester) may be a possible way forward. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever we use (maps or table) I repeat that the inclusion of pre-74 districts and the exclusion of post--74/pre-09 districts is misleading and inaccurate. To go with the current layout just to be consistent with counties which haven't had similar changes is not acceptable. If some counties need a modified form of the table then we should modify it to reflect the reality, rther than to suit some master-plan that ignores referenceable, verifiable fact. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of ignoring things, more of how do we physically get it to work. There is a limit to the width of a table that works and displays correctly, so another column is impossible. There has been very strong support for including the pre-1974 districts (and until this last week, none for including the 1974–2009 districts even in counties that have undergone the unitary mega-reorganisations). Personally, I don't think it is helpful to have two different formats running, as someone looking for the pre-1974 district in Cumbria would also expect to find that information when they turn to Cornwall. So how do we then manage to get the information in, without losing what is already there. If we can get maps produced on the lines below, then I would hope that would give the 1974–2009 districts enough prominence, without causing too much disruption.
Tyne and Wear showing the former local authorities

Skinsmoke (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order[edit]

All the "St"s should sort before Saltash, (i comes before l in the alphabet). DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the autosort facility on Wikipedia does it. It treats it that "a" comes before "t". If you want it that way you have to spell out "Saint" in full (my personal preference, but again, not how we do it on Wikipedia). Skinsmoke (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have to pipe them so they appear in the correct order. See Category:Civil parishes in Cornwall for "how we do it on Wikipedia". DuncanHill (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly willing to add the sort key myself to save you some effort, will need you to stop adding parishes for a few minutes though. DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:DuncanHill, but belongs here[edit]

Hi Duncan. Sorry about that. I was that tied up with problems with the Geograph2Commons tool, which appears to be having serious problems with the new look Wikimedia Commons page, that I hadn't noticed your plea for me to stop adding parishes while you sorted it! Do we have consensus for this format of ordering across the United Kingdom, or just in Cornwall (mind you, not many places are as saintly as Cornwall in their naming policies!)? I note that Category:Districts of England and Category:Metropolitan boroughs use the alternative alphabetical order where St comes between Splott and Stalybridge, rather than between Saffron Walden and Sale. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we need consensus to use correct alphabetical order? If those categories are incorrectly sorted, it's because no-one has bothered to add defaultsorts to the articles correctly. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the Manual of Style makes it clear that both formats are acceptable (as is a format that groups Saint, San, Santo Sankt and whatever together), and that there isn't a correct or incorrect alphabetical order. Similarly with McMacs. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, if both are acceptable then let's go with what is already established for Cornwall. For place names in Britain we're unlikely to find many in Santo or Sankt. I would note that both the Ordnance Survey and the Reader's Digest sort St at Saint in their atlases, as does the Times Atlas of the World, the Oxford Dictionary of the World, and A. D. Mills' Popular Dictionary of English Place-Names. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think something with fairly wide reaching consequences like this should be decided by just two editors. I would suggest we ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Question: Should alphabetical order mean alphabetical order, as used in reputable reference works, or should it mean not-in-alphabetical-order, because this is Wikipedia and we don't like do do things properly? Sorry, but I don't see what the problem is. If you're going to have a table that sorts by alphabetical order, then do so. Otherwise, don't bother. I do not see the point of making a table sort in an order that bears no relation to reality. DuncanHill (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Just because you favour a particular version of alphabetical order does not mean that other editors will also favour that version. As already explained, Wikipedia specifically does not favour one version over another. The fact that you only accept there can be your preferred option demonstrates an unwillingness to consider that other people may have equally valid views.
The reality that you quote is let down by your own examples. You state that the Ordnance Survey sorts by your preferred version, but that is patently not true in all cases : their website places St between Spalding and Stirling. The Office for National Statistics places St between South Hill and Torpoint. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England places St between South Norfolk and Stockton-on-Tees. Cornwall Council places St between South Petherwin and Stithians.
All these examples are just as valid as the ones you quote, and demonstrate that, rather than the dogmatic approach you appear to be insisting on, there are varied opinions on what constitutes an alphabetical order.
Rather than try to force one person's preferred version, I happen to think we should try to reach a consensus on a version preferred by the Wikipedia community in the United Kingdom. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing we have to bear in mind here is that we are talking about the civil parishes in this list. Although I agree with Duncan that for villages etc that ordering St Such-'n'-Such under Saint is perfectly acceptable and possibly preferable, Skinsmoke is correct when he says that the name of the civil parish is officially set down in legislation. Therefore what is the name of the civil parish? - is it officially St Such-'n'-Such or is it Saint Such-'n'-Such but abbreviated? Whether the name of the civil parish was derived from a village (which most likely would be from an abbreviation) may not be of relevance.
My personal preference would be to treat it as St as is in the current version on List of civil parishes in Cornwall. I don't think doing it this way would mean it was a not-in-alphabetical-order as Duncan says, as don't forget it is about letters; and the text displayed on screen (and therefore letters) are St. I just think this would be how people would search for info as rarely do you see anywhere listed as Saint Such-'n'-Such even though it is the non-abbreviated form. But I do agree we should ask further and get a broader consensus, even in respect to my first point. Zangar (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked users at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography to express their preferences here. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say I really don't have a preference here (come on guys, why does it really matter anyway?) as long as whatever is done is consistent. One thing of relevance (and probably should be incorporated into the table) is the ONS code available here. The ONS codes for parishes are assigned (with a few exceptions) in alphabetic order, so Advent is 00HE001, Altarnun is 00HE002 etc. South Petherwin is 00HE126 and St Agnes 00HE128, so Cornwall sorts St as St not Sa. However, in other counties with St X parishes the generally preferred sort location is Sa not St (the ratio is 4:1), for example Roborough is 18UK049, St Giles in the Wood 18UK050 and Shebbear 18UK052. It must be said that Cornwall has more "St X" parishes than the others combined (I think). Also the names according to the ONS are typically "St. X" with the exception of St Ives, Cambs and St Annes-on-Sea both of which are written as "Saint", this may or may not reflect a legislative distinction.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the majority of readers going to be interested in the codes? The problem is that this would require an extra column, which would mean leaving a column out, or the table will not display properly. We already have a problem getting in the districts 1974–2009 for those new unitaries that have been created. Each of the county pages already includes a link to the Office for National Statistics page where the codes for both the English parishes and Welsh communities can be downloaded in Excel format. A note of caution on the codes though: they can be up to 10 years out of date, as they are only updated each new census (the current ones I think in 2003 for the 2001 census), and so parishes created since then have no codes. Similarly, of course, unparished areas don't have codes. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well irrespective of how old they are they are "current" and so relevant (if a tad arcane) when the ONS changes codes, that can be updated of course, along with other data. The codes for Cornwall are recent as they were established with the unitary Cornwall Council after all. Actually that fact is why there is a change in the sorting, the change in ONS practice Richardguk mentions below was "recent". Therefore the most recent changes - the new unitary authorities - list St as St not Sa. I would point out that if table width is a real problem, why include the "District" column at all, as its just slightly redundant for this table? (And its a misnomer as Cornwall isn't a district). Consistency across the country at the price of silliness at the local level isn't really desirable imo.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The district column becomes relevant once the Isles of Scilly parishes are added. Technically Cornwall is a district (as are all the unitary authorities). So far, these pages have been organisaed on a ceremonial county basis. I've commented elsewhere that it may be the appropriate time to reorganise them on a district basis, which has advantages and disadvantages, but would at least free up a column. That would free up a column which could be used to indicate either the 1974–2009 district or the ONS code (I suspect the district would prove more popular, but I could be wrong). Consistency is relevant as these pages are sub-pages of List of civil parishes in England. The average reader would expect to find the same format for each of those sub-pages they looked at, which is, of course, what would also happen in a paper encyclopedia. I agree that, for the mega-unitaries created in the last couple of years, it's far from an ideal solution (it will be a complete waste of a column for Herefordshire, Isle of Wight, Northumberland and Rutland, for example, where the "districts" are identical to the ceremonial county). On the codes, you are correct about the date. On checking the latest version, they are indeed updated to December 2009 (the last version was only up to 2003). Skinsmoke (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be relevant here to point out that parish names are not necessarily unique within a ceremonial county, nor even within an administrative county? (For the administrative and ceremonial counties of Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Devon, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, North Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Suffolk; and the ceremonial counties of Cheshire, Cornwall, West Yorkshire, Wiltshire.) For example, Gamston, Rushcliffe and Gamston, Bassetlaw, both in Nottinghamshire. The 2009 parish names do seem to be unique within a district or unitary area, despite the districts that merged into unitaries last year. — Richardguk (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are a pair of duplicates in Cheshire, Chorley and Cuddington, and possibly others elsewhere too. The ONS disambiguates these by use of parentheses - so Chorley (Alderley) and Chorley (Cholmondeley), but in both cases the name of the parish is "Chorley". That said, I'm not convinced that is a problem really for these articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also in Herefordshire and, from memory, possibly elsewhere but, as Nilf says, it really isn't a problem for these lists. They link through to the correct articles, and are differentiated by the former rural district anyway. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! If all brackets are assumed to be ONS disambiguators (doubtful, perhaps), then the full list of intra-unitary duplicates is: in Cheshire East: Chorley (Alderley / Cholmondeley); in Cheshire West and Chester: Cuddington (Broxton / Eddisbury); in Herefordshire: Brockhampton (Bringsty / Old Gore), Linton (Bringsty / Penyard), and Newton (Golden Valley South / Hampton Court); and in Wiltshire: Charlton (Brinkworth / Upavon). And similarly, intra-district duplicates are: in the Ryedale district of North Yorkshire: Welburn (Amotherby Ward / Kirkbymoorside Ward); and in the Waveney district of Suffolk: Flixton (Lothingland / The Saints). I should have known better than to expect a sane nomenclature! But don't let me distract you from the lists. — Richardguk (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great isn't it! It may be some consolation to know that even the ultra-organised Germans have one or two! There was a time when the district used to force a change of name with clashes like these. I recall Macclesfield Borough Council forcing Bollington, formerly in Bucklow Rural District, to change to Little Bollington to avoid confusion with Bollington, formerly Bollington Urban District. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The Office for National Statistics changed from the traditional "Sai St Saj" to the computer-friendly "Ssz St Sta" a few years ago (compare 2001 guidance with current guidance). I think we should follow them as the traditional order is no longer common (if it ever was), is potentially dependent on full stops which are now rarely used in modern British abbreviations, and has never been supported in sortable wikitables.
Note though that this means it is important to know whether the official form is "St" or "Saint" since not all official names are abbreviated.
The official name of a parish can be changed by council resolution (as can ward names since 30 December 2007), so while statutes are a (relatively) reliable source, they are not usually definitive.
(I also think we should not use full stops with abbreviations, even where they are used in statutory names, except for post towns where they are relevant to optical character recognition.)
— Richardguk (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richardguk is correct in stating that a district council can change the name of a parish under the latest legislation. However, that change only takes effect once a notice has been issued under Section 75 of the Local Government Act 1972 (the notice formally advises the Secretary of State, Royal Mail, Ordnance Survey and Office for National Statistics of a change of name). These notices are listed annually in the Bulletin of Changes to Local Authority Electoral Arrangements, Areas and Names in England published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Skinsmoke[edit]

Upgrade discussions from Skinsmoke's talk page

Hi, I noticed that on your request that List of civil parishes in Cornwall (pre-2009) was merged into List of civil parishes in Cornwall. Although I agree fully with your above statement that the pre-2009 article was not fit for purpose, after discussion at WikiProject Cornwall we agreed that original version at List of civil parishes in Cornwall was the most up-to-date and should remain on that page. I have asked the admin who carried out the merging to see if they can revert it and then I think a better course of action would be to consider whether we either improve or delete the pre-2009 article. One of the main problems we had with how the information was presented on the (now) pre-2009 article was the inclusion of the former Municipal Borough and Rural/Urban Districts in the Notes section - as Cornwall became a unitary authority, people might assume these were the former District Councils that the UA replaced - therefore a split would be needed to preserve this info. (Sorry if that all seems confusing, after the merge it's hard to be clear about which version/page I'm talking about, please ask if you need clarification)

On another note I agree that a common format would be good for the List of civil parishes in x for England and Wales. I see that there have been some discussions on various Users' talk pages on this - would it be best to have a discussion on this in a centralised location so all editors of List of civil parishes in x could contribute and be aware of it, if it ever gets rolled out? Perhaps on Talk:List of civil parishes in England? Cheers, Zangar (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem here is that the changes were done by cut-and-paste, which for copyright reasons, is not acceptable. As I stated in my nomination of the article for repair, any changes could have been made to the original page. It didn't help that the page was moved to a title that simply didn't make sense (the list was not pre-2009, as it had been updated to include the parishes created since then). Nor was the information on the Isles of Scilly correct (although there are no parish councils, the civil parishes legally exist). Only those civil parishes with a population greater than 300 are required to have a parish council; those over 100 people can have them; those under cannot unless it is a joint parish council with adjoining parishes. The lists maintained by various local authority websites tend to be misleading, as they only tend to list parish councils!
There has been considerable discussion of the format that is best for the lists over the last two years. Consensus was that the former urban districts/rural districts/municipal boroughs/county boroughs should be included, as, on the whole, these existed for eighty years, and they are of particular use for people trying to trace roots through genealogy. Although Cornwall (like Shropshire, Wiltshire, Durham etc) has subsequently gone through a further reorganisation, the 1974 districts lasted only for about 35 years. However, if it is felt that these should be additionally included as a guide, there may be a couple of solutions.
Having got these lists to a common format, I have been working on improving the format, again following discussion with a number of editors who have been involved in various parts of the country in the past. The new format has so far been rolled out at Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, West Midlands and Cheshire. I am currently working on Cambridgeshire and Lancashire, but it takes time. These are to the format that has been favoured for articles achieving featured list status (though I have not yet had the patience/courage/determination to add alt image captions, and nobody else seems to be bothered adding them!). A slightly different format, which achieved featured list status, has been tried by another editor at Somerset, though the inclusion of geographic coordinates appears to have broken the page, and it has subsequently lost its featured list status. A completely different format has been started at Worcestershire, though the editor concerned seems to have lost interest part-way through.
Consideration was given, particularly for the new large unitary authorities, to breaking up the lists by alphabetical subheadings. However, this would be incompatible with the upgrade of the pages, as the whole aim of those is that there should be a sortable list, that can be sorted by parish name; current district; former district; status; and population (it is possible to list all the parishes/unparished areas, for example, in population size from the largest to the smallest).
Consideration was also given to including whether a parish had a council, meeting or joint council. Consensus was eventually reached to leave this out, as it is not always easy to obtain this information, though I personally see no reason why, on the upgraded lists, this could not be included (at least for parish meetings and joint parish councils) as notes in the "Refs" column. If that is the decision, however, it needs to be rolled out throughout the country (and an interim solution put in place for those counties not yet upgraded, perhaps on the lines that town or city status is currently shown).
One other thought is that, with the new format, these pages should be retitled in the format Civil parishes in Cornwall etc. There is no longer a requirement for lists to be titled List of... and, in any case, the upgraded pages are not strictly a list, but rather an article that includes a list.
Please take a look at the upgraded list format, and let me have your comments. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the in-depth reply. I see what you mean about the use of cut-and-paste method to make these changes being a mistake. Although I personally favour the old layout with the alphabetical subheadings on the main list page if we're to move on to the sortable table format used in the examples you gave, it would probably be best to stick to how it is now. Yet I think we will have to come up with a method that includes references to the District Councils, as although they may not have been around as long as the Rural/Urban Districts those of us born in the 1980s/90s would remember them more so.
I know we did change the naming conventions for a few of the parishes, so I'll try to update the current list based on the old list. Thanks for updating the Isles of Scilly as well. Zangar (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and express the Cornwall upgrade, by the way (next after Cambridgeshire?). The 1974 districts can be incorporated quite easily (particularly on the upgrade) by using the refs column, though I can't find a way of getting a specific column for those districts due to space limitations. Although it won't be possible to sort by 1974 district, the information will be there in the format [1] etc. The actual wording is negotiable!
  1. ^ Part of Carrick District from 1974 to 2009
Not sure what you mean about the "naming conventions for a few of the parishes". Can you give me an example or two? The list should have the official name of each parish, and has been checked against the Office for National Statistics Parish Headcounts (correct at 2003); Ordnance Survey Election Maps (largely up to date, though I have noticed one new parish in another county that hasn't been included to date); and the Department for Communities and Local Government Bulletins of Changes to Local Authority Electoral Arrangements, Areas and Names in England (correct at 1 April 2009: the new edition should be published in the next couple of months taking it to 1 April 2010). Any alterations have been cited, where possible with the legal document formally changing the name (in Cornwall, the only example is the St Austell parishes which, as they have not yet appeared in the Bulletin of Changes, are cited with a Restormel Borough Council document). It is possible that something has been missed, though I usually find that the problem is that the district council hasn't issued the Section 70 notice to formally change a parish name, and so the name officially remains unchanged. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, if you'd like I'm sure Andy F and I (and others at WP:Cornwall can do most of the leg work on the upgrade on that one, but if you'd be able to review the upgrade and round it off that'd be great (where would be best to start making the upgrade - a new page in User/Project space or just do it continuously in the actual article?) The column using refs for all the districts should be fine as you say. I think I've updated all the names (a few of them where named after their geographic location rather than the civil parish name), we got this from the Cornwall Council website (that uses the OS Election Maps) and was referenced in List of civil parishes in Cornwall/version 2, although I assume that list was correct. Zangar (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will get back to you overnight on this, as I'm a bit tied up right now. I would suggest working up the page in a Sandbox (others should be able to get access and work on it that way, if there's a few of you. The list is of civil parishes, so should show the official name of the parish (though I usually link in the format [[Lanteglos-by-Fowey|Lanteglos]]. Bear in mind that the name of a parish only officially changes once the council has issued the Section 70 notice (a number of councils are particularly poor at this, so their use tends to differ from the official version: East Riding of Yorkshire are a bugger for it!). Ordnance Survey Election Maps is usually the most reliable source, though there can be a timelag of a couple of months before they update. You need to turn on the parish layer to show the parish boundaries/names. I am working on the statistics for Cornwall's parishes at the moment (that's why I'm tied up) for the introduction. Will get back to you. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taken a while to get there, but I've managed to work something up at User:Skinsmoke/Sandbox/Civil parishes/Kernow (have taken it to the letter F!). Haven't put a reference in for the 1974 districts as this would simply duplicate the population references (which are split by 1974 districts). Have even managed to get the Cornish names in there! Let me know what you think. If any of your colleagues at the Cornish project can help, there are 65 parishes where we need a Cornish name (I can work out about 10 of these, but they really need confirming by someone who knows the language, or at least has a reliable source). Skinsmoke (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done with that! I've made a few minor additions so far. I'll try to help you in expanding the list in a day or two. Nice to see the inclusion of the Cornish language as well - I tend to use The Cornish Language Fellowship website to help with names (although the list isn't complete for all the civil parishes). With regards to the "District" column; I think this meant to refer to the next layer of government, in which case it should point to Cornwall Council, the UA, also I don't think this column needs the Cornish language name as it's already stated in the lead of the article. Zangar (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've moved the St Austell comment to the introduction, not because it is inappropriate where it was, but simply to prevent it being accidentally copied with the rest of the general text when setting up an upgrade for other counties. In the introduction, it immediately follows the text that has to be changed for each county, and so should be more noticeable.
There was a somewhat heated discussion some time back at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography on how to link English unitary authority areas. The consensus was that we should link to the area, not to the council, in line with how we link to metropolitan districts, London boroughs, shire districts, Scottish council areas, Welsh counties/county boroughs and Northern Irish districts. The thinking was that people following the link are more likely to be looking for an article about the area, and its people, culture, geography, economy etc, rather than one about the political composition of the council. Anyone seeking the politics, can of course, follow the link from the area article to the council article.
I'm easy one way or the other on the Cornish name for Cornwall. It's not a major issue on this particular page, where there are only two districts (technically the unitary authority area of Cornwall is a district, I've not gone mad!). However, I was thinking more about when we get to Wales, where it might be useful to have the information to hand, rather than have to go searching the page for it, particularly as it isn't a major problem technically to include it (I just copy and paste that section). For Wales, it may also be possible to include the Welsh form of the former authority, such as "Porthmadog Urban District Dosbarth Dinesig Porthmadog." Unfortunately, I don't know enough Cornish to do that for Cornwall, other than that ranndir is district! Skinsmoke (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Warlinen site has reduced the number of parishes without a Cornish name to 18, with 11 needing clarification (including Camborne and Saint Austell)! Warlinen has different names for those two than are already shown on the Wikipedia articles, just to complicate matters. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Zangar[edit]

Upgrade discussions from Zangar's talk page

Hi Zander. Thanks for your comments. I've replied at some length, with suggestions on how to incorporate your additions, on my Talk page. Please let me know there what you think. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At last, I've got back to you with a worked up example at my Talk page. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help so far. Glad to see you have not fallen into the habit most people have when they do this, which is put a picture of a church up for nearly every parish (very often they are the best picture from a parish, but I always think the list should give a pictorial overview of the county as a whole, illustrating not just churches (and chapels), but the industry, agriculture, customs, physical geography, economy etc.). You've got a good range of subjects, including a couple that are a bit "off the wall": love the lifeboat station and the otter! A couple are a bit on the dark side at the low resolution, and we may need to go back and see if we can find something better later on, but, all in all, a bloody good start! (You may have noticed from the history, I do go back and change some of the images I've selected, if I don't feel they are working as a whole: Morvah is a case in point, and that isn't counting the four or five I changed before pressing the "save" button!). Sometimes an image looks great at the larger resolution, but just doesn't work at all as a smaller image. At least, so far, there are no very small parishes with populations less than 10. Finding images for those in Cheshire was a nightmare! Skinsmoke (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also contacted the Cornish Language Board about the missing Cornish names. They've got back to me today to say it may take a while, but they will put the list to a meeting of their panel of experts as a priority, and get back with their deliberations. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd follow your lead with the pictures, it certainly makes sense and looks a whole lot better for having a range of pics. I thought we'd have difficulty with getting pics that weren't of churches, as that's the only pic that's in most of the civil parish articles. But looking at the civil parish category on commons, there's quite a few. So far I haven't needed to get any extra through TUSC, but as you can see, I have signed up for an account. Well done for contacting the Cornish Language Board, it pays to be proactive! Also, sorry for leaving you with Pentewan Valley, I hadn't realised what a pain that would be for getting a population and a reference. Although the ref you provide just takes you to the data input stage, can we put a link to both wards perhaps in one ref? Zangar (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberately left the reference vague as you have to create an area using census output areas in conjunction with the 2003 ward boundaries and then balance the resulting figure to the total for all the other parishes in Cornwall, and also for the individual wards (the portion of Pentewan Valley in Mevagissey ward is easy, as it's the balance of the ward left after the other three parishes have been extracted). Even then, the total is not exact, as the new boundaries don't coincide with output areas, but it's the best we (or anyone else) will be able to get until the 2011 census figures are produced (the portion of Pentewan Valley in St Ewe ward is less easy to calculate, as a boundary between Pentewan Valley and St Austell Bay has to be aqpproximated to census output areas). On balance I thought it was better to include a figure, provided that it was possible to balance out the county's figures, though it could always be challenged. It took me about 8 hours to balance Cornwall! It was the reason I was so long getting back to you the other day, as I searched for a missing 432 people I couldn't account for! This is not just a problem for parishes created since 2003 (when the census output for parishes was published), but also for unparished areas in other counties, especially where two or more are adjoining (the metropolitan counties are the worst). So far, the figures haven't been challenged, and I was a little surprised to note that they've been borrowed for the articles on a few of the towns in those areas. The methodology is the same used by the Office for National Statistics in recalculating figures for revised wards, which are also a "best fit" solution, as the new ward boundaries invariably don't match up exactly with census output areas. If only life was simple! Skinsmoke (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, in the early stages I did try to use the census figures for "urban areas", but trying to work out which output areas are, or are not, included in those proved impossible, and they are incompatible with the "parish headcount" figures, and so the district/county will not balance. At least the "usual resident population" figures are derived from the same dataset as "parish headcounts", and balance out (with a little effort on occasions!). Skinsmoke (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put up a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps along the lines of the English metropolitan counties to be prepared for the rest of the United Kingdom. It's an enormous task, so I'm not holding my breath!
Another thought that has occurred is whether it is time to reorganise the subpages of List of civil parishes in England by district, rather than ceremonial county. The advantages are that the page upgrade will not break the page for the larger counties (Somerset has 417 parishes; Devon has 425; Suffolk has 475; Norfolk has 540; Lincolnshire has 592; and North Yorkshire has 783!); and that it would free a column, which can be used for abolished post 1974 districts. The disadvantages are that it will no longer be possible to sort county-wide by name, population or former district; and that some districts have very few (or no) parishes. I think any such decision would need to be discussed at Talk:List of civil parishes in England and Talk:List of communities in Wales (or perhaps referred to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography), and at the moment I haven't come to any firm opinion, but it's an option for the future, and it may solve the districts problem for Cornwall, where the only other impact would be that a new page would be created for List of civil parishes in the Isles of Scilly. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it just occurred that another option would be a mix-and-match solution. Have separate pages for the unitaries with parishes (not much point for those that have unchanged boundaries like Nottingham, Telford and Wrekin or Darlington); for districts in counties with more than, say, 400 parishes (North Yorkshire would still have 751 parishes even after York has been excluded; Lincolnshire 514 after excluding North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire; Norfolk would remain unchanged at 540; Suffolk unchanged at 475; Devon would still have 424 after excluding Plymouth and Torbay; but Somerset would fall to a manageable 329 after excluding both Bath and North East Somerset, and North Somerset); and leave the rest in their present format. It would mean changing the access route from List of civil parishes in England, otherwise it could prove very confusing, perhaps by using redirects from, for example List of civil parishes in Plymouth to a new page titled List of civil parishes in Plymouth and South Hams, or from List of civil parishes in Blackpool to List of civil parishes in Lancashire. All needs a bit of thinking about, I think. Wouldn't work, as the main point is to free up a column! Skinsmoke (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've taken it about as far as I can, without the former districts map (still no takers for producing that). Have put a note in the column header explaining about the districts (and done the same for Cheshire). See what you think. Are we in a position to move to the article? I'm sure Duncan won't be happy, but then I don't think anything I'm involved in will ever satisfy him, as he still seems to hold a grudge over linking the unitaries. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, I think it's ready to go. If we do come up with anything for the districts we can always make the changes in article space. I'm wondering if the civil parish map for Cornwall (File:Cornwall UK mainland parish map (blank).svg) might help the map request?
Should Wolf Rock be included in the table as it is unparished and just the statement in the lead will suffice? Zangar (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you beaut, where did you find that map! It should help enormously. I can even get part way myself with that! I've included Wolf Rock for two reasons: because the unparished areas (mainly larger towns) are included in the lists for other counties (otherwise you have an enormous hole in the population figures); and because it was listed as an extra parochial area prior to 1974 by Vision of Britain, and therefore is likely to cause confusion for anyone who consults that source (the only other unparished offshore areas so listed are Bull Fort in the East Riding of Yorkshire, which was previously a civil parish in its own right; and Lundy Island in Devon, which is populated). Ordnance Survey Election Maps suggests there may be other unparished offshore islands in Cornwall, particularly in the Isles of Scilly, but until these are itemised somewhere I have ignored them. You will note that the list itself is actually titled List of civil parishes and unparished areas in the sub-heading, to cater for this.
I'll see what I can do with the map to make life a bit easier for any willing cartographer. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good! Nilfanion has been creating a whole load of new maps for the UK. His location maps are here: commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps/Location maps and county-based maps (where I found the civil parishes one) here: commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps/Counties. That might help others in future. That makes sense about Wolf Rock. Zangar (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the clincher for me on Wolf Rock was that it would be a shame not to include such an excellent image! LOL. Thanks for the nod up on the maps - I'd traced them back through Wikimedia Commons from the Cornwall map and bookmarked them. Shame he's not done the Welsh communities yet, but give him time! Skinsmoke (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. Now just wait for all hell to break loose! Have also moved the discussions from the talk page across. Do you want to move this discussion, similarly? Skinsmoke (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good there. Was the upgrade done by copy & paste? I'm just wondering if this is the best way of doing it? Considering the problems with the rolling out of the last version. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was. As far as I'm aware it's the recommended method when moving from user space to article space. That way you maintain the action history of the original article (though you lose the action history of the sandbox). I suppose the only other way of doing it would be by merge (which is still copy and paste), but I've never (ever) seen a merge template referring to a merge from user space. That's why I moved the discussion page details over as well, otherwise they would be lost. Mind you, I'm open to be corrected on that! Skinsmoke (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old list article moved to subpage here[edit]

I've moved List of civil parishes in Cornwall/version 2 out of article space to Talk:Civil parishes in Cornwall/List of civil parishes in Cornwall (version 2), a subpage of this page. We shouldn't have subpages in article space (see WP:Subpages) and the list seems to be substantially the same as the one in the current version of the article. It contains some edit history, so I reckon it ought to be preserved as an archive.  —SMALLJIM  12:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible idea. We can also host the page over at WikiProject Cornwall, if we later don't want this in talk space. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Civil parishes in Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Civil parishes in Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_parishes_in_Cornwall&oldid=1206705549"